Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Timotheus

  1. For anyone looking for a great monitor/recorder, the BM Video Assist is on sale AND has finally got an anamorphic desqueeze through firmware. Check https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/readme/e4e05190041545a7933378d614ddbfd4 No details yet on desqueeze ratios, though.
  2. ^ I love how this never gets old. As for Canon, sure there will be a rational, clinical, business explanation for their choices. I also believe that the negative vibes people get from them are going to hurt them in the longer run. No fullframe 4k option without crop, no 4k over hdmi on the 5d4, no 4k on the 6d2, no c-log on flagship 1dxii, no basic video functions as peaking, 45 AF points on the 6d2 but all in the center, no middle codec on the c200, only 9 AF points on the 200d... All this considering Canon pricing. And that it is 2017. It just feels like pure calculation and/o
  3. Congratulations on removing the step ring! Glad it worked out. But that second ring...no, I left that on haha. Can you put it back? Does it have a screw thread as well? What does the RF look like without it?
  4. Mmm, tricky...mine got loose after unscrewing a rather tight fit. It then required little effort to remove and just soms acetone to clean the glue rests from the threads... Perhaps you could try and wiggle with some filter wrenches? Or try to get acetone on the threads to dissolve the glue :-/ It sure evaporates quickly, so even if you spill a little on the glass it shouldn't be too bad.
  5. Well this promo suggests that any concerns over the film's looks might be premature. Amazeballs. Do hope that Gosling shows a bit more range in the final product though
  6. Yes! (only requirements £800 and waiting a few weeks / months) :-p
  7. Heads up to users of the 72mm version of the SLR Magic Rangefinder (the discontinued one without distance markings)... The rear 72mm attachment ring on mine had some rotational play. I decided to see if I could remove it. I succeeded, turned out the connector was a step ring glued on! Underneath a 77mm thread, just like the one with distance markings. See pictures. Trying to remove the step ring (at your own risk ;-)) might be worth it as it brings the RF closer to the attached anamorphic glass, benefiting vignetting. Conclusion: both versions of the Rangefinder are mechanically
  8. ...and a follow up Sigma suggestion: the 10-20mm, in two versions: f4-5.6 and a more expensive but constant f3.5.
  9. @Christina Ava Can confirm this. Can also confirm this lens deserves all the praise it gets. Buy used for even more of a steal (although a small investment in the Sigma USB dock is recommended). Suprised no-one mentions the very cheap Canon 10-18mm with IS. You gotta mod the EF-s mount, but that should be easy. See below.
  10. Daaamn Kees...brilliant combo. You got a good deal on that Bolex?
  11. I second this. Considering the price ($499) for a focusing, super lightweight adapter this ain't bad. Century Optics and Optex adapters sell for as much...and they're like 20 years old. Now just wait for a nice discount and you got a real steal here.
  12. Tito, first of all massive kudos for going to such lengths to produce a 'real' short for testing these lenses. I think you and your crew did a great job, certainly considering the few hours you had. Regarding your questions, a few observations: What people say or think they want ("narrative lens tests FTW!"), is often a different thing from what they actually prove to be wanting (see also: relationships, gear, presidents and so on). Still, intent and purpose of the short might be somewhat too unclear for some viewers. On youtube the short is presented on it's (narrative) own withou
  13. For me, one of the most interesting commercial directors for sure. And I'll sure remember Sicario: the chilling scene of Benicio gunning down a drug lord's kids and lady...the shootout in the traffic jam. Some tense stuff. But hey, to each their own.
  14. For those who are interested... ;-) Here's a video from Personal View with some more details on the adapter.
  15. Oh man...the illustrous discipline of selfrighteous hypocrisy. We can all learn from the best nowadays. Trying to keep laughing through it all.
  16. Damn man, that's the thing that most anamorphic shooters must dread the most. I remember a pic from Tito of a Century WS-13 he let slip...ouch! But thanks for keeping us posted, interested in your results, especially of the focuser8. With this and Rapido's upcoming single focus unit, the number of options is growing quickly.
  17. yes its is fixed focus at 4m, there is also a 3m variant if you mod it to infinity, then sharpness nearby suffers significantly. I would only suggest this if you want to use a single focus solution like Rectilux, Rangefinder or the new Aivascope (although that last one may not fit) if you want to know how the lens works on different sensors, use Tito's calculator you can use diopters to decrease the focus distance
  18. Oh, the irony. Also noted: throwing 'insanity' and 'terrorism' at @jcs when he has been polite, patient and indeed persistent. Ad hominem much?
  19. No worries mate, there is a learning curve to this stuff... Yes, a diopter would fix this (that's more or less the point of a diopte), however you lose the ability to focus at infinity. Suggested read: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7282 (and everything else that Tito put out :-p)
  20. Please. No-one is denying that there are combo's that you cannot match in practice (as in your example), when very large differences in sensor size are involved. But this is only due to the fact there are no equivalent lenses (Iphone 6 cropfactor 7.21, you can do the math...or can you?). However, the overlap between say medium format and fullframe is much less extreme and yes, can easily be matched using equivalent lenses.
  21. Thanks for sharing, very nice! The adapter clearly benefits from the smaller sensor as it looks pretty sharp all around, performs certainly better than in @Tito Ferradans's (otherwise excellent) fullframe example video.
  22. It's the other way around. When using a smaller sensor, you have to use a wider lens to get the same FOV as a larger sensor camera. Using your example: shooting from the same spot with both a FF camera and a 2.4x crop camera you achieve the same FOV ('framing') when using a 40mm lens on 2.4x crop and 96mm on fullframe. (If you also want to achieve the same DOF, you have to apply the crop factor calculation on the f-stop as well). So if the widest taking lens for a given anamorphic is 85mm on fullframe, it can be around 50mm on APS-C and around 40mm on MFT...all giving more or less th
  23. Of course results are what count. My 2 cents: just don't get caught up in a possibly expensive quest for medium format glass assuming there is a super different, unique, mythical look to be achieved. (Not to say that hunting down and using vintage glass is a blast!). Understanding equivalence can help one understand what results can be expected from any combination of sensor size and lens. Yes, there are unique combo's at the extremes of the range (no m43 equivalent lens for a 50mm f1.0 on full frame). But in general: for the most frequently used focal lengths, you can find equivalent len
  • Create New...